Arroyo, Jr. v. CA
G.R. No. 96602
G.R. No. 96715
November 19, 1991
Facts:
Dr. Jorge Neri filed a criminal complaint against his wife, Ruby Vera Neri, and Eduardo Arroyo for adultery. In November 1982, Ruby went to Baguio with Mrs. Sare and witness Jabunan. They stayed at the Neri spouses’ Mines View Park Condominium. Arroyo arrived at 7:00 p.m. at the condominium. Jabunan said he opened the door for Arroyo and knocked on Ruby Neri’s door. Ruby then asked Mrs. Sare, who was in the room with her, to leave her and Arroyo alone. The two were left alone in the room and went out 45 minutes later. In December 1982, Dr. Neri then found incriminating pictures of his wife and Arroyo in bed. When questioned by her husband, Ruby admitted that she and Arroyo slept together in Baguio.
On August 26, 1991, Dr. Neri filed a manifestation, praying that the case against his wife and Arroyo be dismissed because he had tacitly consented to his wife’s infidelity. Ruby moved for reconsideration, contending that pardon had been extended by her husband and that Dr. Jorge Neri had married another woman with whom he is cohabiting. Both Arroyo and Ruby Neri filed their respective motions praying for the dismissal of their cases based on Dr. Neri’s manifestation.
Arroyo and Ruby used Dr. Neri’s affidavit to cast doubts on the doctor’s credibility as witness.
Issues:
1. Is Dr. Neri’s affidavit of desistance sufficient to cast reasonable doubts on his credibility?
2. Had Mrs. Neri’s constitutional right against self-incrimination been violated?
3. Does Dr. Neri’s alleged extra-marital affair preclude him from filing the criminal complaint on the ground of pari delicto?
4. Is Dr. Neri’s manifestation a sufficient basis for granting a new trial?
Ruling:
1. No. It has been the Court’s constant holding that in certiorari proceedings, the findings of fact of the lower court as well as its conclusions on the credibility of witnesses are generally not disturbed.
2. No. As held in Gamboa v. Cruz, “the right to counsel attaches upon the start of an investigation, i.e., when the investigating officer starts to ask questions to elicit information and/or confession or admissions from respondent-accused.” Because Dr. Neri is not an investigating officer, Mrs. Neri’s confession to her husband could not be rejected by the court. As held in Aballe v. People,
“The declaration of an accused expressly acknowledging his guilt of the offense may be given in evidence against him. The rule is that any person, otherwise competent as witness, who heard the confession, is competent to testify as to substance of what he heard if he heard and understood all of it.”
3. No. The concept of pari delicto is not found in the Revised Penal Code but only in Article 1411 of the Civil Code. Furthermore, the said article relates only to contracts with illegal consideration. The case at bar does not involved any illegal contract.
4. No. Dr. Neri’s manifestation amounts in effect to an attempted recantation of testimony given by him before the trial court. It is settled that not all recantations by witnesses should result in the granting of a new trial.
It's a Ping Thing 